Home | About | Donate

A Crippled Supreme Court Awaits an Election in Which Hillary Clinton Is the Lesser Evil


#1

A Crippled Supreme Court Awaits an Election in Which Hillary Clinton Is the Lesser Evil

Bill Blum

As the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3, an old adage comes to mind. It was first penned by the satirist Finley Peter Dunne in 1901. Purged of its original Irish brogue, the saying admonishes: “The Supreme Court follows the election returns.”


#2

It is only a matter of opinion that Clinton is less evil than Trump.
They are both so evil that it is really hard to rank them on this score.

The only reasonable choice is a vote for Jill Stein, a candidate who is not evil.

Voting for either Clinton or Trump is a vote for perpetuating the current evil corporate rule of our country.


#3

One more month of apologia. One more month...


#4

Scary. Bernie, quit messing around and get back in the race. Jill will run with you and you will win. Millenials will decide this election. Send out some feelers about your getting back in the race, running with Jill and check the polls without making a commitment.


#5

Yes Hillary and Trump are just alike. She actually paid 31% of her income in taxes and donated over $1 million to charity on approximately $10 million in income in 2015. This is consistent with prior returns going back to when she left the Senate. Oh, we know this because all of her returns are located here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/

That's also how we learned of her speech income too--it was reported. Yep, just like Donald Trump.


#6

Back to this old saw about voting for Hillary because the complexion of the Supreme Court depends on it.
What a load of crap.
1st of all Trump is never going to be the president.
Second of all, we should shrink the Supreme Court to a useful size. Say three Justices.

Hillary's campaign is based solely on fear. And nonsense.


#7

I wish it were not so, but Jill Stein has bern so effectively frozen out that not enough people have even heard of her to make them consider voting that way,

Unless someone -- perhaps someone who isn't part of her campaign -- can do something to get her and the ideas she represents out for public consideration, a vote for her won't change anything this time around.

I have my doubts that things will servive under current conditions, what I think of as a "shaky status quo" through an entire four year presidency particularly with all the current edge of nuclear war situations currently percolating, and the climate worsening perceptably almost hour by hour, and the global banks gambling with what little security our faith based economic systems still have -- sorry and I really hope I get be proven to have been wrong, but all the trend lines seem aimed at the global toilet to me,

Will anyone be able to ask the next president: You said during the campaign that you could fix things and get things to work good again. When can we expect to see that starting to happen?


#10

When John Paul Stevens (appointed by GOP President Ford in 1975) retired in 2010 pundits across the political spectrum agreed that Stevens was the most left leaning justice on the court in 2010, despite appointees from Clinton and Obama being on the SCOTUS at the time (Jimmy Carter never had an opportunity to nominate a SCOTUS appointee).

This was not surprising when you consider that when formed in 1985 the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) pushed the Party rapidlly rightward, thereby pushing the GOP even more rapidly and more further rightward.


#11

That's right. Hillary pays taxes and gives to
charity. So fewer people will expect her to
do horrible things like promoting fracking,
bloody regime changes from Iraq to Syria
to Honduras to Yemen to Ukraine...
"Free Trade", (Global Corporate Empire-
wiping out any laws, national or international
that might threaten corporate profits, even
though those laws are needed for human
rights, or the fight against our extinction.)
Hillary already has blood on her hands. Her
neo-con-neo-liberal coalition is presently
pushing us towards a nuclear WW III.
But the "Democrats" have PROVEN EFFECTIVE at putting much of their base
IN A STATE OF DENIAL!
You are part of the problem, promoting this,
rather than doing all you can to let people
know that Jill Stein and tha Green Party
exist.


#12

Blum assumes that Clinton will have a Senate controlled by enough Democrats to be able to have her SCOTUS nominee(s) confirmed.

If the GOP continues to control the Senate the SCOTUS will continue to shrink through attrition.


#13

That's the same point I made the someone the other day. If the GOP regains the senate (and it looks as though they will) the SCOTUS will continue to be 4 to 4 for the forseeable future. Hell, even if he democrats manage to capture the senate, it will be by one or two votes, and the earliest you would see confirmation hearings will be late March.
With that said however, the democrats long term plan is clearly to attempt to retain the White House only, and try and pack the SCOTUS so that they can legislate through the High Court. Now I will go and look up what constitutes a quorum on the SCOTUS, as that will determine what the GOP strategy will be. If they can wait out the death of Ginsberg and perhaps Breyers as well, we could see an understaffed SCOTUS until 2021 at least.
Just another sign of our crumbling infrastructure.


#14

I just looked it up. A quorum on the SCOTUS only has to be 6 voting justices. If the GOP wins the senate it looks as though there will not be a fully staffed SCOTUS for the forseeable future.


#15

And Hillary Rodham Clinton was prominent in the DLC leadership.


#16

The DLC strategy of making sure that the GOP controls Congress as much as possible has made a mockery of the SCOTUS nomination/confirmation process, and the SCOTUS itself.

Knowing that the SCOTUS right wingers are younger than Ginsberg and Breyer, the GOP's strategy is to continue refusing to confirm nominees and let the SCOTUS shrink by attrition if Clinton is elected, shifting the balance in favor of the right wingers. If Trump is elected and the GOP controls the Senate, they will replace Ginsberg and Breyer with right wingers.


#18

Which three?


#19

Not true, but what the hell.


#20

Yep. Another case of knowledgeable progressives without preconceived notions, right?

If anyone is interested in hearing a non-Breibart oriented take on the Clinton Foundation, here's a good interview with Joe Conason:


#21

Hi raydelcamino. While it's true that some Repub appointees have turned out well (Suter is another example), Thomas, Alito, Scalia (rest in peace), and Roberts turned out to be horrific, and Bork would have been worse.


#22

vote for Jill Stein? Hmm, I felt very good voting for Barry Commoner in 1980. He was absolutely on target for every progressive issue and a founder of the ecology movement. His term as president markied a turning point away from the disastrous course that would have led to uncontrolled climate change by 2016..,Oh wait, he only got like 1% of the vote and Reagan defeated Carter. And what did Reagan do to stave off the present disaster? He removed solar panels from the White House and appointed James Watt to head the EPA - a man who actually said we didn't need to do anything for the environment because Jesus was coming back soon.

So yeah, I despised the warmonger (as I saw him) Jimmy Carter and felt great about voting for Barry Commoner but it the kind of feeling good you get from a nice bottle of wine, to be followed by the worst hangover ever.


#23

The difference between Carter and Raygun was kilometers while the difference between Clinton and Trump is millimeters. Although I was tempted to vote for Commoner or John Anderson in 1980 I had endured 8 years of Wrangler Ron in Sacramento, worked as a federal contractor during the Carter years seeing real across the board rightsizing, and what a positive difference Jerry Brown (pre-DLC Brown) made in California post Wrangler Ron. I voted FOR Carter in 1980 and FOR Mondale in 1984, feeling good about those votes to this day. I have not voted for a Democartic Party POTUS candidate since and won't until I see the likes of at least Carter or Mondale on the ballot.

By 2016 standards Carter is not a "warmonger".

Pre-DLC (1985) most Democratic Party candidates were labeled "guns and butter" candidates. Programs that benefit the 99% were in the mix with Wall Street/military industrial complex goodies.

Post DLC any candidate who is not a guns and Wall Street candidate is derailed during the primaries.